If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans

HAHAHA and the right hand of God, I mean Obama gets even heavier. What a ****ing joke this is becoming, people worried about getting shot with an assault weapon should be worried about the path to socialism that is blazing at full tilt. Make sure you get that little blurb in there about proof so that you can legally cover you ass when these things start smashing into compounds in the US. I cannot wait until little Johnny and friends gets blasted by a US drone strike on his native US soil walking to school. I'm afraid that will be what it is going to take to wake America up.

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

Did you even read the memo, and do you have the legal education to follow the reasoning? No, of course. All you have is right wing fear and name-calling.

Yes I read the memo:

[Taken from page six of the memo]

In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against the U.S persons and interests, in at least the following circumstances; (1) Where an informed, High-level official of the U.S. Government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conduction the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles. In these circumstances, the “realities’ of the conflict and the weight of the government’s interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a U.S. citizen before using lethal force. Cf. Hamdi, 542

[Taken from page 7 of the memo]

(what constitutes an imminent threat “will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats…it must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.”)

The literature in the memo is an opened ended interpretation to continue the drone campaign while being able to pull out the bulk of the troops. I'm no liberal but I'm also not a hardcore GOP supporter either, there needs to be a check in the system and this memo is designed to be a way around the checks to the system, when it specifically names the amendments and what constitutes an acceptable way to circumvent them when dealing with a citizen you are no longer protected by those amendments.

Last time I checked the system was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but we all know it is guilty until proven innocent or in this case guilty with circumstantial evidence that normally isn't even allowed as evidence.

Can we order drone strikes on the terrorists on capitol hill? Threats to our rights and liberties are nothing if not terroristic.

Please not that was a joke. We have a process to replace our elected officials.....i just wish the country would wisen up and demand it be so. No violence necessary to re-take our country from the special interests

Yes, up until the point it is abused. I don't see the problem with the U.S. government can order the killing of ANYONE if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” .